ORDER 1. The order dated 12-4-2005 passed by this Court notes in substantial detail, the problem of polluted water in Delhi and one of the major reasons for pollution being a large quantity of untreated sewerage going to River Yamuna. The order also takes note of three-pronged strategy which had earlier been suggested by the Chief Secretary of Delhi for cleaning of water in River Yamuna as also other reasons, such as unauthorised construction and encroachment on the banks of River Yamuna. Pursuant to the said order Mr Anil Baijal, Secretary in the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India has filed a detailed affidavit on 5-8-2005. We have perused that affidavit with the assistance of learned Amicus Curiae Mr Ranjit Kumar and Mr Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General. There is a candid admission in the affidavit that there is little improvement in the quality of water of River Yamuna. The affidavit sets out future plan of action, revised strategy and suggestions for periodical review and monitoring. 2. A two-pronged strategy has been suggested so as to achieve the target of improving the quality of water of Yamuna. One being the Delhi Jal Board continuing to complete the ongoing works as stated in the affidavit and the second, which is of considerable importance, is installation of sewerage treatment capacity at the mouth of major drains where they discharge water into the river. It has been suggested that the installation of sewerage treatment plant in the proximity of River Yamuna would be installed at the mouth of all the major drains so that the water can be treated before its discharge into River Yamuna. This has been one of the major reasons for water pollution. It has been noticed in the order dated 12-4-2005 and admitted in this affidavit that the main drains leading to River Yamuna continue to carry untreated sewerage water. The strategy of sewerage treatment at the mouth of the major drains, it has been explained, has been tried for cleaning of river water in London. The affidavit states that on either banks of River Thames drains have been constructed in which all the sewerage and treated/untreated water is taken to the sewerage treatment plant before being discharged into the river. This strategy has greatly improved the quality of water of River Thames. The affidavit states that on either banks of River Thames drains have been constructed in which all the sewerage and treated/untreated water is taken to the sewerage treatment plant before being discharged into the river. This strategy has greatly improved the quality of water of River Thames. The advantage is that no water or very little water gets mixed with the treated sewerage treated/untreated water before it is discharged into the river. The affidavit further explains that at the instance of the deponent, a meeting of senior officials of the State Government and of the Delhi Jal Board was convened under the chairpersonship of the Chief Minister of Delhi to consider the suggestion of additional sewerage capacity at the mouth of River Yamuna so that sewerage water can be trapped and ejected before it is to be discharged into the river. Today, we are informed by the learned Solicitor General that the Delhi Government and the Delhi Jal Board are going ahead with the suggestions and in fact they have received the response from 14 consultancy services regarding the setting up of such additional sewerage treatment plant. Some of the parties, it is stated, are international consultants well known in the field. The affidavit states that this strategy could be implemented within a period of 4 years and with its implementation there should be perceptible improvement in the quality of water. 3. We hope and expect that the Delhi Jal Board and the Delhi Government would go ahead with the implementation of the suggestions and also examine the feasibility of earlier completion of the work of setting up of such sewerage treatment plant. 4. After noticing that one of the reasons for the works having not been completed as per schedule given to this Court is lack of proper monitoring and review of projects at various levels, it is suggested that effective monitoring would not only lead to better coordination in removal of bottlenecks in the implementation of works but also in case of any serious problem impeding the progress of the agency concerned, the matter can be brought to the notice of this Court for necessary directions. This aspect has been highlighted in the order dated 12-4-2005. The present order, in fact, is in continuation of that order. This aspect has been highlighted in the order dated 12-4-2005. The present order, in fact, is in continuation of that order. Be that as it may; three technical monitoring mechanisms have been suggested so as to ensure the compliance with the order within the time mentioned in the affidavit of Mr Baijal. The same are: (1) Monthly review at the level of Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board. (2) Quarterly review at the level of the Chief Secretary, GNCTD. (3) Six-monthly review at the level of an Apex Committee of Experts which this Court may constitute. 5. Accepting the suggestion for setting up of a monitoring mechanism, we also direct that after two weeks of quarterly review, a status report shall be filed in this Court so that the same can be examined and, if necessary, the Court can issue further directions. Regarding the constitution of the Apex Committee of Experts, we request learned Solicitor General and the learned amicus curiae to give their respective suggestions on consideration whereof such a committee can be constituted. While giving suggestions learned counsel would keep in view two basic requirements of the experts, namely, their dedication and commitment and knowledge of the subject. The suggestion may be given within two weeks. On the receipt of the suggestions the matter shall be placed for consideration of the matter relating to constitution of the committee. For this limited purpose the matter may be listed on a miscellaneous day. 6. Apart from the above, various problems have been mentioned in the affidavit, primarily under the head Analysis of Problems, in Paras 6.1 to 6.8. It is for the authority and other municipal authorities in Delhi, in particular the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, to come out with a definite stand in respect thereof, whether it relates to encroachment or removal of slums from a the river banks and other similar problems highlighted in Paras 6.1 to 6.8 and other paragraphs of the affidavit, resulting in aggravating the problem in the city of Delhi. The aforesaid authorities shall file well-considered detailed affidavits within a period of four weeks. Court Masters